Forum:Equipment and rarity, how to organise?
Some equipment have multiple rarities. How would we go about with its pages? ; Multiple pages, with rarity in trailing parenthesis : How: Witchblade (Normal) and Witchblade (Magic) : Infobox: One per. No sense in having information regarding Magic under Normal page. : Cats: One per. : Pros: :* Allows categories to grab the corresponding page, thus Witchblade (Normal) won't fall under Categories:Normal Magic Swords :* Page name clarifies what rarity item without loading page. :* Fairly insured from backlink breakage -- "Woops, I accidentally broke a link to Witchblade#Normal by accidentally throwing in a dot like so: Normal. " :* RH hasn't gone overboard with same-name-different-stat, so it may be feasible. : Cons: :* When taking into account the other stats that may cause ambiguity, this may not be as feasible. :* Page size of all rarities combined may not require splitting in the first place. ; One page, with rarity in split sections. : How: Witchblade#Normal and Witchblade#Magic : Infobox: Multiple per. Each section will have one. : Cats: Multiple per. : Pros: :* One convenient page. Allows comparison of variation within one page without transclusion. :* DRY (don't repeat yourself). Keeps data more consistent. :::Notes on transclusion: :::* It is mainly used as a DRY (anti-redundancy) principle and has its pitfalls. :::* It can confuse greenhorns as to why the massive sections of the page has been replaced by when they try to edit. :::* It may indicate that a page requires rewriting. If a page becomes so large that it requires transclusion, then perhaps linking them with "For further details, see: detailed page" is the way to go. :::* (I still can't successfully edit Costume (List)/General via Costume (List)/Angela without having to navigate to the transcluded page. The rest of the section is somewhat manageable, but only due to the sections on their page.) : Cons: :* Page may get cluttered and require splitting. :* Section backlinks may break. ; One page, with rarity as subpages. : How: Witchblade/Normal and Witchblade/Magic : Infobox: Multiple per. Each subpage will have one. Maybe the root can have one for common traits (e.g. image, base name). : Cats: Multiple per. Each subpage will be categorised to appropriate cats. : Pros: :* Each rarity information subpage has a common ancestor. : Cons: :* For this proposed purpose (differentiating rarity), they are evil and are to be replaced by disambiguation pages Wikipedia:Subpages -- it just won't work for equipment articles. ; Other (open for suggestions) : Some other way of distinguishing between each equipment that I haven't thought of yet. Each methodology has its immediate shortfalls, which can be redeemed with a bit of tweaking (well, perhaps not in the case of subpages). I'm rooting for either "Sectioned Pages#Rarity" or "Split Page (rarity)". —BryghtShadow~talk~ ~ 03:54, December 3, 2011 (UTC) A possible solution * My vote would go for the first option, with the more common reference taking the space of the page witout brackets (). For example: Gauntlets contains the article about Tude's gauntlets as it's likely to be searched for the most. At the top there's a referral to the Gauntlets_(Item) page. * You can't really beat disambiguations entirely, but adding the same item with different rarities to a single page like in example 2, as you said will be cluttering quickly and cause more confusion in the end. * Subpages, as per you example in option 2, and for a solution in option 3 are a mixed blessing. You get an automatic linkback at the top of the page, but actually using sub pages is mostly for categories or templates used on "that" specific page. * Costumes needs work, no argument there :). I'll see if I can get rid of the extra sub and flatten those out a bit. * At any rate, I'd say option 1 would be the preferred method, with - where possible - keeping the page that would be most commonly visited as the "main" article with a reference of "were you looking for" at the top like in the Gauntlets page. And as the Template:Disambig states - if you end up on a page like that from an internal link, the internal link should be modified. 10:51, December 3, 2011 (UTC) References